Through my readings and interview with Joe Kulapan, I decided I wanted to do something on the topic of transfer students, especially from community colleges. I would like to see how community colleges help and/or hurt student's chances at bachelor degrees. To do this, I would need data that follows individual students from school to school. Several of the articles I have read have used the National Education Longitudinal Study: 1998-2000, which would work because it tracked students across all their schools, and could give a full picture of student's lives. I hoped that I would be able to use it, so I borrowed the data from the library. It seems, however, that either the data is only cross-sectional and does not give individual results, or I am unable to extract this individual data due to technological incompetence. Either way, it has been disheartening not being able to use that data, and I am not sure where I can find good data on this subject.
So I see my options as trying to find other data, to approach this subject from a more theoretical perspective, or to switch to some other sub-topic in graduation. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks.
Saturday, March 7, 2015
Thursday, March 5, 2015
Alternative paths to college completion: Effect of attending a 2-year school on the probability of completing a 4-year degree: Jonathan Sandy, Arturo Gonzalezb, Michael Hilmer
This paper tries to find the effect of attending a 2-year college before attending a 4-year university has on Bachelor degree rates. It uses the
National Longitudinal Survey, class of 1972 (NLS72);
the 1994 round of the Beginning Postsecondary Study
(BPS); and the 1992 round of the sophomore cohort of
the High School and Beyond (HSB) as separate data sources to see if their results are consistent. It also uses Oaxaca's method to attempt to separate any potential differences between those who start at 2- year institutions and those who start at 4-year institutions by whether it is due to variations in student quality or variations in institution quality.
The most interesting part for my purposes was the analysis of the HSB data, as this was the data used by Adelman in his first toolbox study. He found transferring from a 2-year to a 4-year institution while earning more than 10 credits at both increased graduation rates. Would these researchers find the same results? They did not, in fact, they found that chances of graduating were 19.3% lower for those who attended 2-year institutions first, and that about 48% of this was due to lower student quality while about 52% was due to lower institution quality. Why the opposite results?
For Sandy, et al., mother some college, father some college, gpa above a B average, female, verbal and quantitative SAT scores, and hours worked were all significant controls. For Adelman, high school performance, having children, continuous enrollment, 1st year grades, dropping many courses first year and overall, and grade trend were all significant controls. He also found sex, whether a student worked or not, and starting at a 4-year university were insignificant, while Socioeconomic status (SES), which Sandy, et al. try to represent with parental education, was only significant at the .1 level.
Given the differences in the findings despite seeming to use the same data, it appears that one of the controls must explain the differences between these findings. In my eyes, the two major factors that Adelman accounted for that Sandy, et al. did not are the subject having a child and continuous enrollment. Between these, it seems like continuous enrollment, one of the biggest factors of Adelman's model, is the likely culprit. Perhaps 2-year students who go directly into 4-year programs have more momentum, or have lower opportunity costs, or were more motivated in the first place, or some other factor that means they are more likely to graduate than those who wait between finishing at a 2-year and attending a 4-year institution. Another potential factor is in the way transfer is described; Adelman requires at least 10 credits from each institution. Perhaps students struggle from the transition from 2-year to 4-year, and thus never complete even 10 credits from the later, still including them in Sandy, et al.'s analysis, but not Adelman's.
Either way, this shows how tangled all this data is and how seemingly similar assessments of the same data can show wildly different results.
The most interesting part for my purposes was the analysis of the HSB data, as this was the data used by Adelman in his first toolbox study. He found transferring from a 2-year to a 4-year institution while earning more than 10 credits at both increased graduation rates. Would these researchers find the same results? They did not, in fact, they found that chances of graduating were 19.3% lower for those who attended 2-year institutions first, and that about 48% of this was due to lower student quality while about 52% was due to lower institution quality. Why the opposite results?
For Sandy, et al., mother some college, father some college, gpa above a B average, female, verbal and quantitative SAT scores, and hours worked were all significant controls. For Adelman, high school performance, having children, continuous enrollment, 1st year grades, dropping many courses first year and overall, and grade trend were all significant controls. He also found sex, whether a student worked or not, and starting at a 4-year university were insignificant, while Socioeconomic status (SES), which Sandy, et al. try to represent with parental education, was only significant at the .1 level.
Given the differences in the findings despite seeming to use the same data, it appears that one of the controls must explain the differences between these findings. In my eyes, the two major factors that Adelman accounted for that Sandy, et al. did not are the subject having a child and continuous enrollment. Between these, it seems like continuous enrollment, one of the biggest factors of Adelman's model, is the likely culprit. Perhaps 2-year students who go directly into 4-year programs have more momentum, or have lower opportunity costs, or were more motivated in the first place, or some other factor that means they are more likely to graduate than those who wait between finishing at a 2-year and attending a 4-year institution. Another potential factor is in the way transfer is described; Adelman requires at least 10 credits from each institution. Perhaps students struggle from the transition from 2-year to 4-year, and thus never complete even 10 credits from the later, still including them in Sandy, et al.'s analysis, but not Adelman's.
Either way, this shows how tangled all this data is and how seemingly similar assessments of the same data can show wildly different results.
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Interview with Joe Waranyuwat, Part II
This is a continuation of the correspondence I have had with Kulapan (Joe) Waranyuwat, Academic Advisor and Coordinator of Transfer Programs at UIUC, about his work with engineering transfer students. He was kind enough to answer some of my follow up questions.
Scott Spitze (SS): How much do you track students once they have transferred here? Is it the same as other students, or do you pay closer attention to them? Are you quicker to intervene if transfer students seem to be struggling?
Joe Waranyuwat (JW):
Post-transfer:
Scott Spitze (SS): How much do you track students once they have transferred here? Is it the same as other students, or do you pay closer attention to them? Are you quicker to intervene if transfer students seem to be struggling?
Joe Waranyuwat (JW):
Post-transfer:
We track the transfer students once they have transferred here, but no more than what we do with the other students. Because transfer students do just as well (as measured by GPA) as the non-transfer students, we decided not to provide more support or resources for the transfer students than we do for the non-transfer students and to put our resources elsewhere (pre-transfer).
Pre-transfer:
I should mention that we have two groups of transfers: Pathways and non-Pathways. We do not provide resources for the non-Pathways prospective transfer students beyond what you’d typically see in a college office: advising and admissions counseling. Most of our resources are put into the Engineering Pathways program: http://pathways.engineering.
SS: What does the University do to help transfer students adjust socially, or is that something you have to let happen naturally? For the students who struggle here, do problems seem to be more social or more academic?
JW: The problems seem to be more social. We have social events spread across the first semester. The first semester is usually the hardest so we try to get them connected then. After that first semester, most of them are OK. We also have an orientation course that really helps them make the transition. Topics include: study skills, expectations, time and stress management, campus resources, etc.
SS: I do not know how much you take high school performance into account, but if you do, about what percentage of students could have been accepted to the University if they had applied as freshman, and what percent probably would not have been accepted, but their college career makes them qualified?
JW: I have not measured this so I cannot say conclusively. But my hunch tells me that most of them would not have been admitted as a freshmen. For the majority of them, their college career makes them qualified.
Here’s my personal opinion with the caveat that I do know much about this area so I’m commenting purely out of observation:
To be admitted as a freshmen, you have to be really good at taking standardized tests since most of our admitted students fall in the top 1% of the country in terms of test scores. These tests have merit but major flaws too. They measure processing speed (how fast you can crunch out those math problems, and it’s not about whether you have the capability to think abstractly which is what is often required for advanced undergraduate study), knowledge base (the better the high school you go to, the better your knowledge base), and income level (if you’re really low income, you can’t afford to take these tests). So the students that miss out on admission might be slower thinkers (and thus can’t score in the top 1%) but has an ability to do complex mathematics and reasoning, or students who have potential to learn but didn’t attend the most resourced high schools, and those who simply cannot afford the exams.
We see many transfer students who fall into these categories.
Friday, February 20, 2015
Progress Report, Week 2/15-2/21
On advice from a friend who transferred here, I contacted Joe Waranyuwat, Academic Advisor and Coordinator of Transfer Programs at UIUC (interview here). He was very helpful; giving me an outline of how the transfer process works here at UIUC and answering my questions about transfer students. I'd once again like to thank Mr. Waranyuwat for his time.
This week, I've been reading a lot on transfer students. I haven't been summarizing them formally, but I have added them to my bibliography. These papers focused on the process transfer students go through and how they fair at their new universities, and how community colleges can best help their students.
The second topic was addressed in Juan Carlos Calcagno, et. al's "Community College Student Success: What Institutional Characteristics Make a Difference?" Which compared individual student results based on the community college they attended. They found that smaller size and lower proportion of part-time faculty both correlated with higher success rates.
The first topic was addressed in a number of papers I read, one of which, "Academic Performance of Community College Transfer Students and 'Native' Students at a Large State University," was written by J. Conrad Glass Jr. and Anthony Harrington. It compared 100 transfer students and 100 'native" students all attending a 4-year public university students for 2 years starting junior year. Some transfer students saw gpa fall the first semester of junior year, but final grades were not statistically different from non-transfers. Transfer students were more likely to drop out and graduate late, but were in many ways similar to "native" students. The sample size, however, was quite small.
A more qualitative look at the process of transferring came from Barbara Townsend's "Community College Transfer Students: A Case Study of Survival," which interviewed community college students from one school who transferred to one 4-year university. The students mostly reported that they transferried on their own, with more help from the 4-year university than the community college. They found the academics more rigorous at the 4-year university, and many of their biggest wishes were that the community college would emphasize more writing.
Townsend worked with Nancy McNerny and Allen Arnold to produce a quantitative measurement of transfer students in "Will this Community College Transfer Student Succeed? Factors Affecting Transfer Student Performance," which followed transfer students from one community college to one 4-year university. They focused mainly on high school and community college performance as predictors, and found that both predict higher gpas at the 4-year university. But it also found that of the students, about 50% would not have been accepted based on high school performance alone, and many were able to achieve satisfactory gpas at the 4-year university.
From the readings this week, I think I have a few questions:
1. Part-time faculty correlate with lower success rates for students of community colleges. Is it justifiable for these colleges to increase tuition so they can higher full time staff, or would this expense not justify any improved results that might be seen?
2. The success of community college students still largely depends on background and academic preparation. But many community colleges employ open enrollment and have a mission of serving everyone. Is this mission hurting the students who end up moving on to 4-year colleges and would benefit from more rigorous teaching? Should community colleges be divided into those for students who want associates or below and those who want bachelors or above?
3. Transfer students face two types of challenges when arriving at new schools: social and academic. How are these problems different from "native" students? What can universities do to help transfer students meet these challenges?
4. As shown before, high school success is a huge indicator of college success. But some transfer students succeed at community colleges and 4-year universities despite shaky high school records. Is this the case of students under-performing in high school, but they know most of the information needed for college, they just don't signal so, or do they learn the gaps in their knowledge at community colleges that allow them to succeed at 4-year universities? Can community colleges take students who are not qualified for 4-year universities and transform them into students who are?
This week, I've been reading a lot on transfer students. I haven't been summarizing them formally, but I have added them to my bibliography. These papers focused on the process transfer students go through and how they fair at their new universities, and how community colleges can best help their students.
The second topic was addressed in Juan Carlos Calcagno, et. al's "Community College Student Success: What Institutional Characteristics Make a Difference?" Which compared individual student results based on the community college they attended. They found that smaller size and lower proportion of part-time faculty both correlated with higher success rates.
The first topic was addressed in a number of papers I read, one of which, "Academic Performance of Community College Transfer Students and 'Native' Students at a Large State University," was written by J. Conrad Glass Jr. and Anthony Harrington. It compared 100 transfer students and 100 'native" students all attending a 4-year public university students for 2 years starting junior year. Some transfer students saw gpa fall the first semester of junior year, but final grades were not statistically different from non-transfers. Transfer students were more likely to drop out and graduate late, but were in many ways similar to "native" students. The sample size, however, was quite small.
A more qualitative look at the process of transferring came from Barbara Townsend's "Community College Transfer Students: A Case Study of Survival," which interviewed community college students from one school who transferred to one 4-year university. The students mostly reported that they transferried on their own, with more help from the 4-year university than the community college. They found the academics more rigorous at the 4-year university, and many of their biggest wishes were that the community college would emphasize more writing.
Townsend worked with Nancy McNerny and Allen Arnold to produce a quantitative measurement of transfer students in "Will this Community College Transfer Student Succeed? Factors Affecting Transfer Student Performance," which followed transfer students from one community college to one 4-year university. They focused mainly on high school and community college performance as predictors, and found that both predict higher gpas at the 4-year university. But it also found that of the students, about 50% would not have been accepted based on high school performance alone, and many were able to achieve satisfactory gpas at the 4-year university.
From the readings this week, I think I have a few questions:
1. Part-time faculty correlate with lower success rates for students of community colleges. Is it justifiable for these colleges to increase tuition so they can higher full time staff, or would this expense not justify any improved results that might be seen?
2. The success of community college students still largely depends on background and academic preparation. But many community colleges employ open enrollment and have a mission of serving everyone. Is this mission hurting the students who end up moving on to 4-year colleges and would benefit from more rigorous teaching? Should community colleges be divided into those for students who want associates or below and those who want bachelors or above?
3. Transfer students face two types of challenges when arriving at new schools: social and academic. How are these problems different from "native" students? What can universities do to help transfer students meet these challenges?
4. As shown before, high school success is a huge indicator of college success. But some transfer students succeed at community colleges and 4-year universities despite shaky high school records. Is this the case of students under-performing in high school, but they know most of the information needed for college, they just don't signal so, or do they learn the gaps in their knowledge at community colleges that allow them to succeed at 4-year universities? Can community colleges take students who are not qualified for 4-year universities and transform them into students who are?
Discussion with Kulapan (Joe) Waranyuwat, Academic Advisor and Coordinator of Transfer Programs at UIUC
I was privileged to be in contact with Joe Waranyuwat, Academic Advisor and Coordinator of Transfer Programs at UIUC. He mainly works with engineering studetns, and was gracious enough to answer some of my questions about engineering transfer students at University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
General Statement:
"Transfer process is straightforward. Students apply through the Admissions site, and we select them primarily based on their college GPA. A big chunk of the students transfer from community colleges but a decent number transfer from 4-year institutions as well. We have programming set up for students before they transfer to Illinois and after they transfer."
General Statement:
"Transfer process is straightforward. Students apply through the Admissions site, and we select them primarily based on their college GPA. A big chunk of the students transfer from community colleges but a decent number transfer from 4-year institutions as well. We have programming set up for students before they transfer to Illinois and after they transfer."
"The programming is different for each group since each group has different needs. For the former, it's mostly advising and teaching. For the ones who have successfully transferred over to Illinois, programming revolves mostly around orientation classes and social activities. Success rates, as measured by the Illinois GPA, between the regular students and the transfer students are more or less the same."
Q & A:
Scott Spitze (SS): Are there any differences in background between the average transfer student and the average student who started here?
Joe Waranyuwat (JW): It depends what you mean. But yes, I’d say so. We see more older students among the transfer population, perhaps more low-income students too, and some of them were less prepared for a 4-year school right out of high school.
SS: About what percentage of desired transfers do you accept?
JW: We admit approximately 300 applicants out of 1,000. There is no exact percentage or number. We just want to admit qualified students.
SS: Are there any common problems experienced by transfer students?
JW: Transition to a new campus, courses, and social life.
SS: What are the most important steps to assure smooth transitions for transfer students?
JW: Addressing #3 (previous question). We do this primarily through advising, teaching an orientation class, and providing opportunities for students to engage with each other and the larger campus community.
SS: Would you advise a potential student wanting to go to a school like uiuc to apply directly, or to take classes at a cheaper school before transferring?
JW: This really depends on the student’s individual circumstances and needs. I certainly recommend some to apply directly and others to start at a community college first.
I have asked some more questions about transfer students and am waiting for a response to them, so this post will be updated when I hear back.
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
Potential Data Sources
1. UIUC- 6 year raduation rates of incoming freshman who entered from 1994-2006, includes college, race/Hispanic, gender, and whether the person changed colleges while at Illinois
http://www.dmi.illinois.edu/stuenr/index.htm#gradrates
2. University of Wisconsin- Madison- 6 year graduation rates for freshman who entered from 1996-2005, including at UW-Madison, at any UW school, and any institution, female rates, and "targeted minority" rates
https://apir.wisc.edu/retentionandgraduation/NSC_Enhanced_Graduation_2012.pdf
3. UIC- 6 year graduation rates for incoming fall freshman from 2004-2008, by race/Hispanic and gender, includes underlying numbers
http://www.oir.uic.edu/students/pdfs/IPEDS_GradRate_RE_GEN_FR_FERPA.pdf
4. North Carolina University system- 6 year graduation rates for incoming freshman from 2001-2005 for 17 schools in North Carolina system, includes whether graduated from starting institution or any institution within the system.
https://www.northcarolina.edu/sites/default/files/retention_graduation_report_2012.pdf
5. Oregon State University- 6 year graduation rates for incoming freshman from 2000-2007, includes gender, race/Hispanic, in-state vs out-of-state, no underlying numbers
http://oregonstate.edu/admin/aa/ir/sites/default/files/retention-graduation-gender-ethnicity-residency.pdf
4. College Measures- Potential website to use
Positives- Data on lots of schools, especially useful for smaller universities and community colleges, which are hard to find good data for; break down by race/Hispanic; backed by American Institutes for Research, which seems reliable; some past data; two year institutions include transfer rates
Negatives- Does not say how they got data; does not give underlying numbers, just percentages; unsure over what time period they measure graduations; race/Hispanic data only goes back one year, overall data only goes back five; no info on what happened to transfer students
Overall, I'd be very hesitant to use this data, but other than this source, I haven't found good data other than for large, public, four year universities, and the data I have found for other schools has been just as simplistic. Should I be more worried about false inferences from only looking at big schools, or with errors due to sub-optimal data over a larger sample. My gut says the later, and that if I can only make inferences that apply to large schools, so be it, but I would love your opinion.
http://collegemeasures.org/
5. National Education Longitudinal Study, 1988-2000 This is the data used by Adelman in "Revisiting the Toolbox." I have requested the cd from the library and will update with how good the data is when received.
6. A Stronger Nation through Higher Education- A report by the Lumina Foundation, gives percent of residents of American states, counties, and cites who have at least an associates degree; level of education for citizens of each state, degree attainment broken down by race; all in percentages, not hard numbers
http://strongernation.luminafoundation.org/report/downloads/pdfs/a-stronger-nation-2014.pdf
7. National Information Center for Higher Education Policymaking and Analysis- Website with numerous data on college, including graduation rates, affordability, efficiency, state support. and workforce and economic conditions for each US state; combination of numbers and percentages
http://www.higheredinfo.org/
8. National Student Clearing House- Website that tracks a large number of university graduation rates, broken down by state, type of institution, full time/part time status, and age. Does not, however, have background, and some reports lack the base data sets.
http://www.studentclearinghouse.org/
http://www.dmi.illinois.edu/stuenr/index.htm#gradrates
2. University of Wisconsin- Madison- 6 year graduation rates for freshman who entered from 1996-2005, including at UW-Madison, at any UW school, and any institution, female rates, and "targeted minority" rates
https://apir.wisc.edu/retentionandgraduation/NSC_Enhanced_Graduation_2012.pdf
3. UIC- 6 year graduation rates for incoming fall freshman from 2004-2008, by race/Hispanic and gender, includes underlying numbers
http://www.oir.uic.edu/students/pdfs/IPEDS_GradRate_RE_GEN_FR_FERPA.pdf
4. North Carolina University system- 6 year graduation rates for incoming freshman from 2001-2005 for 17 schools in North Carolina system, includes whether graduated from starting institution or any institution within the system.
https://www.northcarolina.edu/sites/default/files/retention_graduation_report_2012.pdf
5. Oregon State University- 6 year graduation rates for incoming freshman from 2000-2007, includes gender, race/Hispanic, in-state vs out-of-state, no underlying numbers
http://oregonstate.edu/admin/aa/ir/sites/default/files/retention-graduation-gender-ethnicity-residency.pdf
4. College Measures- Potential website to use
Positives- Data on lots of schools, especially useful for smaller universities and community colleges, which are hard to find good data for; break down by race/Hispanic; backed by American Institutes for Research, which seems reliable; some past data; two year institutions include transfer rates
Negatives- Does not say how they got data; does not give underlying numbers, just percentages; unsure over what time period they measure graduations; race/Hispanic data only goes back one year, overall data only goes back five; no info on what happened to transfer students
Overall, I'd be very hesitant to use this data, but other than this source, I haven't found good data other than for large, public, four year universities, and the data I have found for other schools has been just as simplistic. Should I be more worried about false inferences from only looking at big schools, or with errors due to sub-optimal data over a larger sample. My gut says the later, and that if I can only make inferences that apply to large schools, so be it, but I would love your opinion.
http://collegemeasures.org/
5. National Education Longitudinal Study, 1988-2000 This is the data used by Adelman in "Revisiting the Toolbox." I have requested the cd from the library and will update with how good the data is when received.
6. A Stronger Nation through Higher Education- A report by the Lumina Foundation, gives percent of residents of American states, counties, and cites who have at least an associates degree; level of education for citizens of each state, degree attainment broken down by race; all in percentages, not hard numbers
http://strongernation.luminafoundation.org/report/downloads/pdfs/a-stronger-nation-2014.pdf
7. National Information Center for Higher Education Policymaking and Analysis- Website with numerous data on college, including graduation rates, affordability, efficiency, state support. and workforce and economic conditions for each US state; combination of numbers and percentages
http://www.higheredinfo.org/
8. National Student Clearing House- Website that tracks a large number of university graduation rates, broken down by state, type of institution, full time/part time status, and age. Does not, however, have background, and some reports lack the base data sets.
http://www.studentclearinghouse.org/
Saturday, January 31, 2015
Potential Questions to Answer
From my various readings, I have gotten a better idea of what affects graduation and what does not. Here are some of the more promising variables, and how they might interact, with a brief explanation. These are not all explicitly backed by data, but hopefully I can generate some ideas by listing them out.
1. Continuous Enrollment and Transfers- Adelman has shown that continuous enrollment is a huge predictor for graduation, and that transferring to 4-year schools while getting 10 or more credits from both institutions positively correlates with graduation. So it seems that students having a hard time at one institution should be encouraged to transfer to another one that may match their needs better, rather than take a break of a year or more. But this is not a panacea; Adelman also shows that more schools correlate with lower graduation rates. If a student is transferring from institution to institution aimlessly, it hurts their chances to graduate much more than a break would, Could there be a way to tell if transferring would help or hurt a particular student?
2. Pre-College Factors- Adelman showed that academic resources, an index combining high school curriculum, gpa/class rank, and test scores, is a much better predictor of graduation than socio-economic status (ses), sex, or race. High school curriculum, is an especially strong predictor, as DesJardin et al. showed. This is great, because it is possible to raise curriculum for all. Unfortunately, ses is highly correlated to academic resources, and just because a high school student is in a certain class does not mean they understand the material or that the class is teaching what it is supposed to. How can we provide the academic resources to lower ses students so they can graduate college?
3. Traditional vs Nontraditional Students- Nontraditional students are hard to study; it is unclear how to exactly define what makes a student nontraditional, and these students can be very different from one another. Their main shared trait is that their lives do not revolve around their school or its culture. While traditional students tend to live on or near campus, work part time if at all, have many of their social connections tied to the university, and usually only need to worry about taking care of themselves; nontraditional students tend to commute, often work full time, already have lives established outside the university setting, and often have to take care of others, especially children. While nontraditional students often have higher college gpas, they dropout much more frequently. What is the best way to define a nontraditional student? How are nontraditional students at 4-year institutions different from those at 2-year ones? How should institutions interact with nontraditional students compared to how they interact with traditional students?
4. Academic vs Social Integration- For this relationship, I am mainly relying on a study on how college athletics effects college persistence by Mangold and Adams and a New York Times article by Paul Tough on how University of Texas-Austin is attempting to integrate minority students into the university's culture, both of which I have added on my bibliography page but have not formally summarized. Both seem to agree that student integration can have positive effect on academic integration by providing students emotional support and encouragement and making it clear that students belong at the institution and are capable of graduating. But Mangold and Adams note that "social integration is neither a necessary, nor sufficient condition for academic integration;" students may have their own support networks outside of the school or may invest too much energy into their social lives to the detriment of their academic performance. This is an interesting issue for me, because it also includes parts of the traditional vs nontraditional dichotomy, how to help lower ses students succeed, and even could include if an influx of foreign students affects social integration. But I could also see it as the hardest to find data for. How much should universities be concerned with non-academic matters, and how can they best improve them?
1. Continuous Enrollment and Transfers- Adelman has shown that continuous enrollment is a huge predictor for graduation, and that transferring to 4-year schools while getting 10 or more credits from both institutions positively correlates with graduation. So it seems that students having a hard time at one institution should be encouraged to transfer to another one that may match their needs better, rather than take a break of a year or more. But this is not a panacea; Adelman also shows that more schools correlate with lower graduation rates. If a student is transferring from institution to institution aimlessly, it hurts their chances to graduate much more than a break would, Could there be a way to tell if transferring would help or hurt a particular student?
2. Pre-College Factors- Adelman showed that academic resources, an index combining high school curriculum, gpa/class rank, and test scores, is a much better predictor of graduation than socio-economic status (ses), sex, or race. High school curriculum, is an especially strong predictor, as DesJardin et al. showed. This is great, because it is possible to raise curriculum for all. Unfortunately, ses is highly correlated to academic resources, and just because a high school student is in a certain class does not mean they understand the material or that the class is teaching what it is supposed to. How can we provide the academic resources to lower ses students so they can graduate college?
3. Traditional vs Nontraditional Students- Nontraditional students are hard to study; it is unclear how to exactly define what makes a student nontraditional, and these students can be very different from one another. Their main shared trait is that their lives do not revolve around their school or its culture. While traditional students tend to live on or near campus, work part time if at all, have many of their social connections tied to the university, and usually only need to worry about taking care of themselves; nontraditional students tend to commute, often work full time, already have lives established outside the university setting, and often have to take care of others, especially children. While nontraditional students often have higher college gpas, they dropout much more frequently. What is the best way to define a nontraditional student? How are nontraditional students at 4-year institutions different from those at 2-year ones? How should institutions interact with nontraditional students compared to how they interact with traditional students?
4. Academic vs Social Integration- For this relationship, I am mainly relying on a study on how college athletics effects college persistence by Mangold and Adams and a New York Times article by Paul Tough on how University of Texas-Austin is attempting to integrate minority students into the university's culture, both of which I have added on my bibliography page but have not formally summarized. Both seem to agree that student integration can have positive effect on academic integration by providing students emotional support and encouragement and making it clear that students belong at the institution and are capable of graduating. But Mangold and Adams note that "social integration is neither a necessary, nor sufficient condition for academic integration;" students may have their own support networks outside of the school or may invest too much energy into their social lives to the detriment of their academic performance. This is an interesting issue for me, because it also includes parts of the traditional vs nontraditional dichotomy, how to help lower ses students succeed, and even could include if an influx of foreign students affects social integration. But I could also see it as the hardest to find data for. How much should universities be concerned with non-academic matters, and how can they best improve them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)